brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:More BOR Members?
04:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :And there's an Ajraddatz who actually has stuff to do other than this :o (hate this life stuff) 04:37, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::(Are we allowed to comment on this yet?) Go for it! I know who's on my nomination list! --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 09:18, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Who's not active? Is it Captain Rex and LegOtaku? Great idea! 02:21, June 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::They'd be the two.. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 09:14, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::I think they need two more. Nobody votes unless you tell them to nowadays :(. 01:15, June 8, 2010 (UTC) On that cheerful note, I think we should start thinking of criteria if you accept people. I would say: * A good number of successful GAs or FAs (added together) * A good use of the MOS in article edits * Is in Completeness Check Group Please add more. 01:29, June 8, 2010 (UTC) * I wouldn't say they'd have to be in the CCG, as BOR isn't necessarily linked to CCG. I would suggest having a high edit count, say 1000 or more? (Alternatively, you can say patroller rights or above, since every active user with over 1000 edits has patroller rights or above). I would also suggest having some degree of activity in the FA/GA nom pages, but not necessarily just nominators. Just because a user nominates a lot of articles, doesn't mean they're accurate in checking MOS requirements, and on the same line, just because a user doesn't nominate a lot of articles, it doesn't meant they aren't good at critically evaluating articles, which is what the job is about. But hey, this is just what I think, guess we should definitely deicde on criteria before we open voting though. But if there are no objections in the next 2 days, would it be ok to say we're definitely getting two more members soon? 03:04, June 8, 2010 (UTC) **Sounds good to me NHL! --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:15, June 8, 2010 (UTC) **Same here. Two members is perfect considering that it's replacing LegOtaku and Cpatain Rex's positions. This would be permanent induction into the group or temporary until they return? 12:29, June 8, 2010 (UTC) ***I'm assuming permanent, like the new admins.. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 14:26, June 8, 2010 (UTC) ****Just checking. 16:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC) ****Just for clarification, LegOtaku and Captain Rex aren't being "replaced" at all, if they come back, they're still BOR members. But yes, it looks like the number's going to be a permanent seven. 01:59, June 9, 2010 (UTC) }} 23:16, June 10, 2010 (UTC) Anyone? 07:38, June 18, 2010 (UTC) My Thoughts: # Must be an active user. # Must have a record of nominating GAs or FAs. # Checks for spelling and grammar issues. # Has to be a Completeness Member. # At least 750 edits. -[[User:Mariofighter3|'Mariofighter3: ']][[User talk:Mariofighter3|''' Brickfliming now ]][[special:contributions/Mariofighter3| in session!]] 14:38, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Well, if we use your criteria.. then you wont get it.. "Checks '''or spelling and grammar issues." I don't think #3 is necessary.. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 14:47, June 18, 2010 (UTC) * It should be for instead of or. Sorry for the mix up. -[[User:Mariofighter3|'Mariofighter3: ']][[User talk:Mariofighter3|''' Brickfliming now ]][[special:contributions/Mariofighter3| in session!]] 15:44, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :* It should also be "nomination" in #2. I think there should also be a edit count requirement, maybe 1000? 19:15, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::* Sorry, nominating. 21:11, June 18, 2010 (UTC) * I've listed the current proposed items below, feel free to add to it. Tried breaking it into groups so we can see what proposed criteria are clashing with each other, and if there are any other required areas. If there aren't any more suggestions soon (say two days?), I'd suggest we start voting on it fairly soon to get this up and running. 02:37, June 19, 2010 (UTC) I see an issue. It has both: must have 750 edits and must have 1000 edits. However, most of our users who have that many edits do not have more than GA. I think the editcount should not matter for this reason because it does not exclude anyone that would not already be unable to join. I would like to change a criterion so that the number of GA/FA nominations is quantifiable instead of vague. 11:54, June 19, 2010 (UTC) * Yes, this is a clash, but it's just a list of ideas put out there, not any set rules. The list of proposed items will then be voted on soon. Feel free to add any ideas you have to the list. 11:57, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :* 15 GA + FA? 02:55, June 20, 2010 (UTC) No way. I have the most recorded (on page) GA and FA and it totals to 14. That means NOBODY would be able to join the group. I think NHL and LegOtaku have some unrecorded ones totaling to that (at least LegOtaku does) but a more reasonable number would be 5. 03:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :Okay, I'm not really there very often, so I don't know. Maybe ten? 03:23, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Again, too much. If you go on people's pages and count their total GAs and FAs, the only one with FAs is me (2), and most people only have 1-3 GAs (I have 12). LegOtaku has 7 more FAs which he didn't take credit for and Cpatain Rex has an FAnom which will become FA when it is released as a set. But LegOtaku is already in the group and that would make me the sole new candidate. I say 5 would be perfect because with a little effort it's easy to reach. 11:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC) * Ok, well you can all put your ideas below, and they'll be voted on. Personally I'd say 0- the purpose of BOR members is to critially review articles, not nominate them, so I don't really see how nominating even relates to this. But again, if you want to quantify a GA/FA count, list any suggestion below, and it can be voted on later. 12:27, June 20, 2010 (UTC) The GA/FA count is supposed to help identify those dedicated and knowleadgeable about the MOS. If they haven't gotten articles to those statuses, it would be odd to be a critic of other articles. 12:30, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :Umm.. why? Not all food critics can cook, not all film critics can make movies, etc 12:57, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah but this is different. Critics are people who aren't skilled enough to do something so they criticize it. BOR Members should be able to do one themselves so that they have a through and through knowledge of the MOS and so that they have experience. I just think someone who has never done an FA or a GA in their time here would not be a great candidate, and someone who did one or two would still lack some experience. 01:00, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::: I think you need to look up critic in the dictionary :) Anyway, this is getting off topic. Pretty obvious which way we're both voting for, and we can vote our own ways when voting opens. Speaking which, if there are no new proposals, is it ok with everyone to open voting in 24 hours or so? 03:51, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::I would disagree with looking it up but I'm fine with voting. Can you add my criteria of at least 3 successful GA+FA nominations to a proposal? 11:27, June 21, 2010 (UTC) --------- Current Proposed Criteria FA/GA Noms * Be active on FA and GA nomination pages * Must have a record of nominating GAs or FAs. * A good number of successful GA or FA nominations (added together) * If nominating articles, must have a high success rate for nominations * Must have at least 3 successful combined GA and FA nominations MOS * A good use of the MOS in article edits * Must be careful to make sure articles meet all MOS requirements before supporting * Checks for spelling and grammar issues. Groups/Editcount * Is in Completeness Check Group * At least 1000 edits * At least 750 edits * Have patroller rights or above * Must be an active user. Voting Must be Active on FA and GA nomination pages ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) #Heck yea! 00:18, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Must have a record of nominating GA's or FA's ;Support #I'm for this because if someone's going to judge, they should be able to do it. 00:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose # Per reasons listed in above sections 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) # Per NHL. --[[User:Lcawte|'''Lewis Cawte]] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments Please note- if the above vote is opposed, the following three sections will not be implemented as criteria Must have a high rate of successful nominations when nominating articles ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) #Sure. 00:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Please support '''a maximum of one' of the following two sections'' Must have a good number of successful GA or FA nominations (added together) ;Support ;Oppose # "Good" is too subjective to me 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) # Per NHL. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments Must have at least 3 successful combined GA and FA nominations ;Support #I'd say this is important because of what I said above. 00:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Must be known to consistently make edits which comply to the MOS ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) #'course 00:22, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Must be careful to make sure articles meet all MOS requirements before supporting nominations ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) #Yes. 00:24, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) #-- 19:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Checks for spelling and grammar issues ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) # 00:24, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) #-- 19:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Is a member of the Completeness Check Group ;Support ;Oppose # Per above listed reasons 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) #I don't think it's necessary because there are a few good candidates who are not members of it. 00:22, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments Please support '''a maximum of one' of the following two sections'' Has made at least 750 edits ;Support ;Oppose ;Comments Has made at least 1000 edits ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) # Thanks Boba :P --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) #-- 19:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose #I'd say it's too low. The of people who I'd vote for (other than Lcawte) all have at least 3K edits. 00:23, June 24, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments Has patroller rights or above (rollback, patroller+rollback, administrator) ;Support # 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) #Yes 00:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # Considering that anyone without patroller wouldn't get this anyways... 08:17, June 25, 2010 (UTC) #-- 19:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments Must be an active user ;Support # Kind of a given... 23:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) # Heh, heh duh... 00:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 06:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) #-- 19:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ;Oppose ;Comments }}